DCT
2:24-cv-05982
Hyper Ice Inc v. Performance Health Systems LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Performance Health Systems, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP; Miller Barondess LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03304, N.D. Ill., 04/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the District and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s percussive massage guns infringe a patent related to the mechanical design and functionality of such devices, particularly a system for attaching massage heads.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the popular consumer market for handheld, battery-powered percussive massage devices used for muscle therapy and recovery.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on January 2, 2024, less than four months before the complaint was filed. The patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2013 and a non-provisional application filed in 2014. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff's own "Hypervolt" line of products are covered by one or more claims of the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Earliest Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/841,693) |
| 2014-06-27 | Priority Date (Application No. 14/317,573) |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issues |
| 2024-04-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - “Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art massaging devices suffered from deficiencies, noting they could be "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’482 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed to address these issues. A key feature described is a "quick-connect" mechanism, which uses magnets to allow a user to attach and detach different massaging heads easily and securely (’482 Patent, col. 6:46-52). The specification notes this system can be used "without turning off the massaging device" and that the head can be shaped to "easily slip into the opening... even while the piston... is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 6:55-57, 7:10-12).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a more durable, versatile, and user-friendly massage tool by allowing for rapid customization of the massage applicator without interrupting the device's operation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A housing.
- A piston with a "substantially cylindrical bore" at its distal end.
- A motor to make the piston reciprocate.
- A drive mechanism controlling a "predetermined stroke length."
- A "quick-connect system" configured to secure a massaging head by sliding it into the bore "while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but pleads infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Power Plate Pulse Massage Gun" and the "Power Plate Mini Massage Gun" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶17). It alleges these products are sold through Defendant's website, powerplate.com, to consumers in the district and throughout the United States (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Accused Products or their market positioning, other than alleging they possess the features recited in the asserted patent claim (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products include a housing. | ¶17a | col. 3:35-39 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products include a piston with a distal end containing a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶17b | col. 6:58-61 |
| a motor at least partially within the housing and operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a motor within the housing that drives the piston to reciprocate. | ¶17c | col. 3:41-44 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and | The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain a drive mechanism that controls a fixed stroke length for the piston. | ¶17d | col. 11:26-30 |
| a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is configured to secure the first massaging head...by a proximal end of the massaging head being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a quick-connect system that is configured to allow a massaging head to be secured by sliding it into the piston’s bore while the piston is actively reciprocating. | ¶17e | col. 6:52-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s infringement theory rests heavily on the functional limitation requiring the quick-connect system to be configured for attachment while the piston is moving. A central evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products actually operate this way or are designed to do so. The complaint does not provide any evidence (e.g., from user manuals or product testing) to support this functional allegation.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the term "quick-connect system" as claimed requires the specific magnetic implementation detailed in the patent’s specification (’482 Patent, col. 6:60-67), or if it can read on other attachment mechanisms (e.g., friction-fit or mechanical latch) that might be present in the Accused Products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "quick-connect system ... configured to secure the first massaging head ... while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is the most specific and potentially limiting element of Claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely depend on how "configured to" is interpreted and what evidence is required to prove that the Accused Products meet this functional requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "configured to" only requires that the system is capable of securing the head while the piston is in motion, not that it was explicitly designed for or advertised as such. The general description of the magnetic attachment could be argued to inherently possess this capability (’482 Patent, col. 6:46-52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may contend that the term requires specific structural features that enable this function, pointing to the patent's disclosure of a tapered or rounded head that "allow[s] it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 7:8-12). An absence of such enabling features in the accused device could support a non-infringement argument.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful (Compl. ¶20). The factual basis provided is that Defendant had knowledge of the ’482 Patent "no later than the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation appears to be based on notice provided by the complaint itself, which can support a claim for post-filing willfulness. The complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof and functional operation: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the Accused Products’ attachment system is, in fact, "configured to secure" a massage head while the piston is actively reciprocating? The complaint makes this functional allegation without providing supporting evidence, making it a central point of future discovery and dispute.
- The case will also involve a core question of claim scope: Does the term "quick-connect system", in the context of the patent, require the specific magnetic design and enabling features (like a tapered head) disclosed in the specification, or can it be construed more broadly to cover other attachment mechanisms that may be present in the Accused Products? The resolution of this question will define the infringement boundary.